There are civs in the "new world"

[Zaarin]

My guess is they are trying design the game you have to explore other land masses to win the game

I think they'll incentivize it, but I don't think you'll have to explore to win--there are good reasons you might have other priorities. I suppose we'll learn more when we get the Exploration Age livestream.

 

[Navelgazer]

I think my preferred solution to this wouldn’t be hard glass-walls on where you could explore, but rather softer ones where you could maybe get 2-3 tiles past the edge but with the high risk of your exploring unit being eaten by a grue or whatever by straying too far into “here be dragons” territory.

 

[Trengilly]

I think they'll incentivize it, but I don't think you'll have to explore to win--there are good reasons you might have other priorities. I suppose we'll learn more when we get the Exploration Age livestream.

One of the Devs in the livestream specifically said you could choose to take the Mongol adoption path to conquer your own continent and forgo exploration. So its certainly not required to explore/expand to the new world

 

[Zaarin]

One of the Devs in the livestream specifically said you could choose to take the Mongol adoption path to conquer your own continent and forgo exploration. So its certainly not required to explore/expand to the new world

I thought I remembered that in the livestream but wasn't 100% certain so I refrained from citing it; thanks for the confirmation.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Regarding the Vikings, a real-world map could easily have Coast terrain for island hopping from Europe Proper to the Faroes to Iceland to Greenland. As for Vinland, not to downplay the achievement itself, but it had no real lasting consequences; the Vinland colony died out quickly and was mostly forgotten.

I think the potential for long lasting consequences was there. It ideally would be feasible, given the alt-history making of an individual civ game. Gameplay wise, not really a huge concern, though.

Had any traders been afflicted with any nasty old world diseases on one of those longships, it may have not been abandoned so quickly. They may have perceived less risk in the stay/go evaluation(darkly, because the cultures occupying the land succumbed to an epidemic).

 

[Zaarin]

I think the potential for long lasting consequences was there. It ideally would be feasible, given the alt-history making of an individual civ game. Gameplay wise, not really a huge concern, though.

Had any traders been afflicted with any nasty old world diseases on one of those longships, it may have not been abandoned so quickly. They may have perceived less risk in the stay/go evaluation(darkly, because the cultures occupying the land succumbed to an epidemic).

I don't think Vinland would have been viable long-term either way. Greenland was abandoned by the Norse not long after the Vinland expedition on account of the Little Ice Age and poor land management, and without Greenland Vinland would have been isolated. (Or put another way, Vinland could have been viable, but it would have developed in a very different way completely isolated from other Nordic cultures. Which could be a really interesting alt history world-building idea--an Algonquianized Nordic colony in Vinland. Or Beothukized, but that would require a lot more speculation.)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I don't think Vinland would have been viable long-term either way. Greenland was abandoned by the Norse not long after the Vinland expedition on account of the Little Ice Age and poor land management, and without Greenland Vinland would have been isolated. (Or put another way, Vinland could have been viable, but it would have developed in a very different way completely isolated from other Nordic cultures. Which could be a really interesting alt history world-building idea--an Algonquianized Nordic colony in Vinland. Or Beothukized, but that would require a lot more speculation.)

Science Fiction writers have already explored the possibility.

One thing in the Viking favor is that if they do their patented Sail Up The River trick with the Saint Lawrence and some portaging from Great Lake to Great Lake, they wind up at the great Messabi iron and copper deposits at the western end of Lake Superior - and since the Native Americans had been working the copper, at least, for centuries already, locals could even show them the way. That puts, potentially, iron age metal workers sitting on top of an infinite supply of iron resources and right in the middle of a network of lakes and rivers covering the eastern half of the continent (and a good deal of the western half utilizing the Missouri River and its tributaries).

And guess who soon after is sitting just south of Lake Superior? Our old friends the Lakota and the other "Council Fires" of the Sioux. Those merry folks with steel weapons and armor, even without horses, are something to think about.

 

[Voidwalkin]

I don't think Vinland would have been viable long-term either way. Greenland was abandoned by the Norse not long after the Vinland expedition on account of the Little Ice Age and poor land management, and without Greenland Vinland would have been isolated. (Or put another way, Vinland could have been viable, but it would have developed in a very different way completely isolated from other Nordic cultures. Which could be a really interesting alt history world-building idea--an Algonquianized Nordic colony in Vinland. Or Beothukized, but that would require a lot more speculation.)

Isolation is a fair point I'd not considered, but I dunno if an existant, prosperous Vinland wouldn't alter the Greenland dynamics too.

IIRC the Erik the Red saga suggests conflict was a powerful motivator in the decision to leave. Such conflict really had no upside for the Vinlanders. It was probably well within the capacity of the indigenous peoples to wipe them out, given numerical disparities. Leaving was a great decision in those circumstances.

But if that conflict is not likely to come, indigenous peoples having suffered catastrophe to disease, it may have made $ sense to retain a Greenland presence as an economic waystation provided Vinlanders establish a lucrative supply of something or other(which is not guaranteed).

Element of randomness was present there. If relations had gone better, with friendly trade and/or marriage alliances(presuming language barrier is overcome), events may have unfurled differently, for better or worse.

 

[Arent11]

I still don't understand how this is different from previous Civs? Isn't he just describing a regular Continents game?

Maybe all the players start in the "old world" in multiplayer games? And on the "expanded map", there is the "new world" to explore & conquer?

 

[Thormodr]

Could a Civ on the other side of the world that you have no interaction with win a victory condition in the ancient age and you would be powerless to stop them?

 

[Navelgazer]

Could a Civ on the other side of the world that you have no interaction with win a victory condition in the ancient age and you would be powerless to stop them?

I don’t believe so - I don’t think the Victory Conditions are available at all until the modern age.

 

[MasterPaw]

And I don't get the point, how are we going to explore a continent already populated with full civilizations, not minor civs ?

My guess is that new world will start with less players?

Otherwise I don't see why they would lock mp to start on same continent

 

[MasterPaw]

Maybe all the players start in the "old world" in multiplayer games? And on the "expanded map", there is the "new world" to explore & conquer?

Yes that's What happen

 

[MasterPaw]

This arbitrary hard barrier mechanic would deny the Vikings and a hypothetical Antiquity Age Polynesian or Micronesian Civ (Lapita?) their early leg-up achievement.

They might still get naval Movement or Sight which could help enough, like Portugal could

If they think it doesn't detract from the feeling they want, they could still give polynesia access to ocean giving it early access/vision to the new world
Edit: Polynesia could fit as exploration era also but that's not when their distant settling makes more sense

 

[ezzlar]

If the new world starts with civs in antiquity and develops as usual, what is different? Fewer civs? That would just make it easier to be in the new world and grow strong. Will the new world discover the old world first? Can the player start in the new world?

 

[AntSou]

If the new world starts with civs in antiquity and develops as usual, what is different? Fewer civs? That would just make it easier to be in the new world and grow strong. Will the new world discover the old world first? Can the player start in the new world?

My suspicion is that there may not be necessarily a predetermined new world, but instead "new world" is just whatever part of the world is inacessible to a civ at game start. So it's relative. Your world is the "new world" to the civs that starts outside it and vice versa.

Then unique gameplay opportunities are unlocked for inter-continental interactions.

Edit: other than gameplay, this may also allow for some interesting options set at game start: you could set which antiquity civs start in what continent, or choose which ones may be selected randomly for each like the leader pools in Civ 6 but attached to separate continents.

 

[Scrabbler]

Perhaps there’s a twist - we are actually the New World and the other continent is the Old World and starts off more technologically advanced?

 

[stealth_nsk]

And I don't get the point, how are we going to explore a continent already populated with full civilizations, not minor civs ?

I assume there are at least 2 continents, one generally the same as old world and at least one with minor powers only

It feels unnecessarily forced really to have a new world that can be explored only after era change. Why not just have big enough map to do it gradually over time, because of distance.

This arbitrary hard barrier mechanic would deny the Vikings and a hypothetical Antiquity Age Polynesian or Micronesian Civ (Lapita?) their early leg-up achievement.

One of the ideas of having ages is to prevent snowballing. In this context it looks reasonable to not have civs crossing ocean too early.

If the new world starts with civs in antiquity and develops as usual, what is different? Fewer civs? That would just make it easier to be in the new world and grow strong. Will the new world discover the old world first? Can the player start in the new world?

I assume old world and new world don't differ - it's just one hosts human players and the other one don't. But surely, there could be some variants, I actually expect them to be in map settings.

 

[Arent11]

Yes that's What happen

Ok, then what happens in modern age? Does the map "expand" again or just stay the same?

After all, in antiquity, you might have oceans you need ships for to cross. That would "block" your access to the other continent. But what about modern times? There is nothing that can legitimately prevent you from circumventing Magellan style the world in exploration age?

So I guess the map only expands from antiquity -> exploration, but not from exploration -> modern?

 

[Krikkit1]

Ok, then what happens in modern age? Does the map "expand" again or just stay the same?

After all, in antiquity, you might have oceans you need ships for to cross. That would "block" your access to the other continent. But what about modern times? There is nothing that can legitimately prevent you from circumventing Magellan style the world in exploration age?

So I guess the map only expands from antiquity -> exploration, but not from exploration -> modern?

l could see access to the poles occurring, but that would be about it.